# Modest Proposal Reviews - "Team One"



## Desertlifter (Feb 22, 2011)

For the uninitiated here, the thread you see before you is the result of http://www.cigarforums.net/forums/vb/general-pipe-forum/319056-modest-proposal.html#post3741533, a crackpot scheme I concocted not long ago. The ensuing posts you will find here are from the brave souls of Team One, also now to be known as the "*Tampers of the Pouch*."

There is no particular order here, but you should - dear reader - find descriptive missives entailing experiences smoking (in no particular order):

Carter Hall
Sir Walter Raleigh Regular
Sugar Barrel
Mixture 79

So pack your pipe with a premium HTF blend, pour yourself a libation, and read on if you dare. These OTC warriors are going in blind.

Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death
I shall fear no OTC
For thou art with me
Your pipe and your tamper comfort me
For I am the meanest piper in the valley


----------



## Jogi (Dec 4, 2009)

Waiting for M79 :heh:


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

Jogi said:


> Waiting for M79 :heh:


Me, too - bookmarked.


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

OK.

For all the curious out there, here is my review of Mixture No. 79.

First off it is a blend of different burleys. At least 4 colors of burley (each in different cuts) ranging from very bright to a dark chocolate.

The smell in the tub (Yes, I bought a tub. Anyone that wants to try it send me a PM and I will send ya a sample.) is interesting. I smell anise, vanilla, rootbeer, horehound, and booze, maybe burbon?

It comes from the tub at almost perfect smoking Rh. Not dry, not wet, definately not goopy. It lights easily, and out of three bowls so far of it I've used four matches.

There are rumors that Mix 79 wil severely ghost a pipe. I've smoked all three bowls out of a slightly damaged cob. I haven't tried another tobacco in it since, but I will report back on how much it ghosts a pipe.

The flavor is liquorice, a hint of vanilla, a hint of booze (that I'm having trouble identifying) and a sweetness akin to what we call "raw sugar" here in the States. (Large light brown crystals of partially refined sugar.) The burley flavor comes through the topping strongly with a nice nutty flavor. After the exhale, the aftertaste is strong and "waxy". I think this is what folks are refering to as "soapy". I didn't find it soapy at all, but waxy... it brought up childhood memories of my favorite chewing waxes.

It burnt cleanly all the way to the bottom of the bowl without a gurgle.

All in all, I liked it. It definately isn't a favorite, but with each bowl smoked it has grown on me.


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

Great review and thanks for calming some fears LOL


----------



## Jogi (Dec 4, 2009)

Very nice review Mark, good to see that you liked it.. :thumb:


----------



## Desertlifter (Feb 22, 2011)

Today I tried my Sir Walter Raleigh for the first time. Just couldn't wait for my other samples! 

So anyway, I when I opened the pouch to get ready to ship things off I noted two things:

1. this stuff really smells like PA to me. I don't know that I could tell the difference side by side. Both are raisiny 
2. moist in the pouch? nope. The tobacco is quite dry - straight into my new cob it goes.

Packing and lighting were a dream. Nutty-burley goodness with a slight sweetness were met with a slight citrus note on the retrohale. It was actually kind of weird for that, albeit in a good way. Almost reminded me of Orientals in the mix, but very mild. Couldn't have been the pipe - this is a new cob that I picked up specifically for the reviews, and it has only been test fired with PA. Anyway, I am really liking this stuff - more than PA, I think. Overall the smoke is very reminiscent of that tobacco, but it seems more....balanced. I think that I need to try this side by side with PA to really compare the two.

Smoked the bowl down to a fine white ash with no dottle whatsoever. Nic hit? Not that I notice. 

Did I mention that I like this tobacco? I like SWR. Great all-day smoke, even. This is a good morning/late evening blend for when you don't want a heavy hit or to worry about complexity - just a relaxing smoke. I can say that I would (read: will) keep this on hand. Good for blending as it is not heavily cased, great smoke. I'm actually motivated to try the aro version.

So far with OTCs its 2 for 2 on the positive side - not bad! SWR is the winner so far, though.


----------



## phager (Jun 28, 2010)

While not technically my "team" I'll put my review of Mixture #79 here.

*Mixture #79*

This blend seems to be nearly universally reviled here at Puff, and my first experience with this tobacco put me in the same camp. In the interest of equality I was more then willing to give this one another go. Any tobacco product is likely to have some inconsistencies, so I was hoping that my last try was an anomaly. We shall see.

Opening the sample bag (Thanks Mark), the smell of the tobacco was nearly overwhelming, the primary scent I noticed was Licorice with something else, after smoking the bowl and looking at the review above I realized it was root beer. The cut and color of the tobacco was well presented and looked great. The moisture on the other hand was way to high, thankfully a couple of minutes on a plate at the 30-40% RH here dried it out to a smokable level. I packed it into a new cob I was saving for this, grabbed my czech tool and lighter and headed out side to smoke.

It took a char nicely and smoked surprisingly well, the tobacco tasted very much like perfume or heavily scented soap, but unlike the last time I tried it, I also got hints of the underlying burley tobacco. After about 10 minutes of sipping the pipe, and a few relights the tongue bite that I remembered from Mix 79 reared it's ugly head, the perfume flavor was still the dominant flavor, and the burley had slipped further into the background. In order to try and get as much flavor and nuances as possible I retrohaled most every puff. I think this was a bad idea, as that waxy feeling took over my nose, Not Good .

After about half to 2/3 of the bowl I finally decided to call it quits. While my experience on the second go around was far better then the first time, I think this just doesn't fit my preferred flavor profile. If you like perfume/soapy flavor (And there's nothing wrong with that) You might very well like Mix 79. As for me, I think I'll just avoid it from now on.

If anybody reading this would like the rest of my sample, let me know. I'd much rather let someone who might like it get it the have it sit in my cellar til the end of time 

Thanks again for letting me revisit this Mark!


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

First pipe tobacco review and it had to be the infamous *Mixture 79*.

Initial tin (ziploc) note was akin to chocolate covered raisins. I didn't get any of the anise that others have mentioned, which is a good thing as black licorice is low on my list of favorites, nor did I detect their touted vanilla. Small pieces of the multi-colored small cut ribbons ranged from black to tan and reminded me of a linoleum design you might find in a 60's era mud room to hide dirt.

I'll pull the bandage quick on this one. It is not as bad as expected but certainly nothing I would keep on hand. The room notes were OK but the flavors in the mouth were too artificial for my liking. While the burly was noticeable, the overwhelming flavors were more floral in nature. Think body wash, including a hint of soapiness. As the bowl burned, the chocolate covered raisin melded into a bit of caramel...again, like a bad artificially flavored candy. This baccy almost seemed to try too hard to be something it isn't. Cheap casing? I'm not sure the history of Mixture 79. It's been around forever and I suspect it filled an early niche as an aromatic. Today, however, there are just too many better alternatives.

I can see why others complained of tongue bite. The smoke was the most caustic and hottest I've experienced so far, the exact opposite of what they claim. M79 would be equivalent to a "yard-gar" (at best) or more likely a "dog rocket" on the cigar side. Probably not the worst if you were pre-occupied with other things, but not very enjoyable simply to sit and smoke.

Thanks for the opportunity to try it. I'll eventually finish the sample, but will most likely save it for when the snow falls and the drive needs shoveling,


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

*Carter Hall*

This was the sample I sent out mainly because it's my go-to OTC. Another Middleton ribbon cut tobacco blending burly and Virginia. Straight out of the pouch the various shades of brown make it look like...well...what i always pictured cut tobacco to look like. Not much note from the pouch in the way of descriptors.

Mine has always fired right up with no additional drying required, although I'm sure it could still benefit from some. Seldom are relights necessary. I find it a tad more flavorful in the bowl than PA with a slight natural sweetness to it and perhaps a bit of roasted or nutty taste in the back ground. It holds my interest, is easy to keep lit and offers no sign of tongue bite. The room note is rather neutral. No distinct aromas, other than you can tell it's pipe tobacco.

It's easy to get around here in both pouch and tub form. For the foreseeable future this will always be in my rotation and noses out PA as my favorite OTC to date.


----------



## Desertlifter (Feb 22, 2011)

*Carter Hall* continues my trip through OTC/pouch-baccy, and it failed to disappoint. Comprised of evenly cut ribbon bits of uniform color, this stuff packs like a dream - right up there with PA and SWR. Same thing with the char and light, and the coolness of the smoke, and the.....

Well, you get the picture. This is obviously not a purely burley blend like PA or SWR - it has a bit more depth in its sweetness from the Virginias tossed into the mix, a note that carries in to the retrohale as well. While still what I would best describe as "soft," it does have a bit more character in that dimension. It still has the nuttiness I expect in a burley in spades, but has a bit more going on than either PA (least complex) or SWR (middlingly so of the three). Similar to SWR, this stuff is an all-day smoke should one want of such - I scarfed down two healthy bowls in my cob today. Room note seems to be amenable, and the tobacco burns down to the last bit of leaf with no problem.

Thing is, even with the added VA element I think that I like SWR better, at least so far. It isn't all out there in the yeasty-nutty character that a full burley will oft show, which actually left me wanting for a touch of Latakia or Orientals, something that I didn't really feel with SWR. It did not go flat like PA however, and like all three of the OTCs that I've tried, I wouldn't feel bad about reaching for Carter Hall.

I think that this is the really telling story when it comes to the OTC tobaccos tried here. If you go over to the cigar side and reach for a black and mild or a cheap macanudo or other low-end blend, you are getting what you pay for. The quality and experience just aren't there. Not so with OTC pipe tobaccos. While they certainly don't have the exclusivity of a Stonehaven or the like, they are still solid and dependable smokes.


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

Great review Brian!


----------



## Desertlifter (Feb 22, 2011)

Today *Sugar Barrel* called my name as I work my way through team one's samples. Once again the OTCs came through - doing what they do best. Sugar Barrel is a more or less even ribbon cut tobacco that has the typical sweetness of the type - almost a darker suger note, if that makes sense. The sweetness doesn't overpower the smell in the bag though, and I do get a whiff of the burley in the mix. Tobacco reviews lists this as a Burley/Virginia rather than the typical VaBur that I have seen in other blends, and the look and smell in the bag seem to bear this balance out.

The tobacco was a bit more damp than I have been smoking, but after a good char and tamp it set to with gusto. I get a very typical (now that I know what it tastes like) pouch/burley flavor on the puff, and the retrohale is so mild that I can hardly tell it is there. The sweetness carried by the name doesn't overpower the tobacco, and I smell more burley than sugar - not a bad thing. The tobacco burned straight through with one relight, again likely due to the higher RH of the tobacco when I packed it into my cob. I will try this again after drying it for a time. Nic-wise it seems on the lighter side of mild.

When all is said and done, Sugar Barrel continues my cut and paste review closure. It burns cool, tastes mild with good balance, and does what I feel that it sets out to go - put 'baccy in your pipe that you know will taste like it intends, burns like it is intended, and does the same thing - every time. For some reason I don't see using this as a base as much as I would with SWR or PA. The list is growing, but so far here is how it shakes out for me:

1. SWR
2. Carter Hall
3. Sugar Barrel
5. PA

No offense to the PA advocates - it's good stuff as well. I think that they are really so close together that it is hard to pick one over the other.


----------



## Desertlifter (Feb 22, 2011)

Getting closer here - it's time for another trip to the university to pick up my son so it's....

*Cpt. Black White* time!

Had to stop at my B&M first to pick up ....some things....then it was off to the winter wonderland. This tobacco is a different critter in the bag - more or less even chestnut color with ribbons of seemingly random length. It smells of vanilla, although it is not treacly to my schnoz. It is kind of odd in this vein - if I was to close my eyes and give it a sniff, I would swear that it was a cavendish blend instead of a VaBur. It was a bit more damp than I have been used to puffing of late, but I figured what the hell - I've heard that it is bitey anyway. I pulled my Stanwell for this bowl as it was whimpering from my tobacco bag in the back of my truck, wanting to come out and play.

Got the bowl packed and ready, charred and tamped things, and <FWOOM!> it took off! I was expecting a recalcitrant or at least reedy burn, but man did this stuff burn. Initial flavors were largely of a nicely subdued vanilla and marshmallows - I only noted the tobacco on the retrohale. This mellowed somewhat after the initial burn, and the smoke settled into a very mild smoke. It behaved exactly as one might expect - slow down, get the vanilla/marshmallow thing. Speed up, lose the sweetness and taste a bit more tobacco. This remained pretty consistently throughout the bowl, with the exception of a short time near mid-bowl when I could swear I could detect PG. That disappeared almost immediately and never showed itself again.

One thing that stood out with this tobacco was the room note. It is so good that I notice it while I am smoking - something that almost never happens. And that tongue bite? Not a hint of it, and I pushed this pretty hard. The only thing that I would add to that side of the equation is that it was not a cool-burning smoke, and my pipe got quite toasty for a period midbowl.

Final thoughts? I am actually surprised how much I like this blend. It tasted good, would work great in mixed company, and didn't bite. It lit easily and burned easily, and the bowl ran down to just a bit of dottle at the end. I would actually place it in a solid second place so far:

1. SWR 
2. Cpt. Black White
3. Carter Hall
4. Sugar Barrel
5. PA

And that makes five! Mixture no. 79 is next - wish me luck!


----------



## phager (Jun 28, 2010)

I suppose I should throw my thoughts on SWR here. I won't call this a full review, as I think I may have done something wrong.

*Sir Walter Raleigh*

The sample I got of this had a nice tin note to it, however the cut was exceptionally fine, it almost looked like cigarette tobacco, I've never seen pipe tobacco this fine and I think I may have gotten the bottom of the pouch/tub or it saw some rough handling in transit. Well, I decided to throw it in to my Tom Thumb and give it a go. The tobacco packed quite densely, and required me to repack a couple of times before getting an appropriate draw.

I headed out to smoke and had difficulty getting a good char on it, but after a time I got it going passably. The flavors at first were not bad at all, A bit sweet with a nutty note to it (I'm rapidly learning that that's the flavor profile of the burly). However after about 10 puffs or so, things took a turn for the worse, the smoke got ashy and hot, and rapidly started irritating the back of my throat, something I've never experienced with pipes or cigars. I tried to work through it, but the irritation got worse, and was causing me to cough a lot. At that point I let it go out and called it a day.

With all the reviews I've seen on SWR, I have to think it was a fluke. So I'm withholding judgement until I can try it again. I may pick up a pouch at some point just to rule out the possibility of the sample having been damaged.


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

Great reviews guys, I'll be finishing mine up this week. Today was my first pipe in a week and I'm looking forward to settling back in to my smoking routine.


----------



## Desertlifter (Feb 22, 2011)

So&#8230;..

*Mixture 79.* It sits in its baggy. Staring at me. Daring me to set forth. In the bag it is&#8230;.well&#8230;.typical looking. Smells vaguely Lakeland-ish, and I loves me some Lakelands. I am determined - yeah mayhap desperate - to enjoy this blend. Cob in hand, NPR on radio, I set forth. As I readied myself for this battle I thought of Poe for some reason, but I'm pretty sure that Poe would have been a FVF kind of guy.

Lovecraft. He would be into this stuff.

*"I am writing this under an appreciable mental strain, since by tonight I shall be no more." *
Yah - that's the ticket. So join me, dear reader. I now hurl myself into the abyss of Mixture 79.

I set this stuff out last night to dry. Yes - last night. It wasn't overly soggy anyway, but I wanted to give this blend a shot at its crunchiest. Packed the pipe and got the fire stoked. I was immediately beset with a tidal wave of sugar. Seriously. It was like I bit into a sugar cube. The retrohale was that of a mild Lakeland, if Walmart made a Lakeland blend. Perish the thought. But overall? Surprisingly not bad.

*"My opinion of my whole experience varies from time to time. In broad daylight, and at most seasons I am apt to think the greater part of it a mere dream; but sometimes in the autumn, about two in the morning when winds and animals howl dismally, there comes from inconceivable depths below a damnable suggestions of rhythmical throbbing ... and I feel that the transition of Juan Romero was a terrible one indeed."*

Slight Lakeland goodness, smooth burn, little or no tongue bite - overall this is good stuff! Not as good as the other OTCs I've reviewed, but not the evil harridan that I dreaded. The sweetness comes and goes, and although it is very obviously that of a topping rather than from the tobacco it isn't overpowering. It wants to bite for a moment, then that passes. What was really odd about this was that when I was merrily puffing away with no bite whatsoever, and happened to take a sip from my morning drink. This brought on a moment of level three Mac Baren bite. Truly weird, and it only happened once or twice. I got absolutely none of the anise or root beer that I noted in the bag.

*"Memories and possibilities are ever more hideous than realities."*

Mixture 79 merrily burned in my bowl as I made my way through morning fog. Tomorrow I work later and will be able to listen to All Things Considered. Is that Yog-Sothoth? Waitaminute&#8230;.this Mixture 79 thing is&#8230;.surprisingly burnable. If you like a Lakeland, you will get a touch of such on the retrohale. It wants to bite, but doesn't. Dry this stuff, then dry it more.

*"I was nearly unnerved at my proximity to a nameless thing at the bottom of a pit."*

As I made my way to the bottom of the bowl, the sugar cube showed itself again. Then it turned into something I could only describe as sweaty feet. If you went to the gym, shoved a flake or two of Ennerdale into your socks, and then played racquetball for a few hours before smoking it, that would be it. That went away quickly, but like the image of a disfigured streaker on a trampoline, it....lingered. It was odd, because other than this moment of footiness, this was not bad at all. If toe-jam and floral notes are something that you enjoy, then Mixture 79 just might be your thing!


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

Excellent, dare I say. . . _< beautiful ? >_ review, Brian.

But I still don't wanna try it.


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)

The WalMart Lakeland blend. I like it! :thumb:


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

Carter Hall.

I open the bag and it is a nice medium brown color with a few wee bits of bright. A broken small ribbon cut. The smell in the bag is burley, sweet, and a nice fruitish smell I can't identify.

It packs easily, lights very easily, and tastes nice from the first draw, if a bit subdued. After just a few minutes of smoking (the tobacco just burnt down a couple milimetres) I get a strong, nutty burley flavor. It's very nice. I taste a raw sugar sort of sweet, a moderately strong flavor I can't identify at all, but nice, and if puffing it slow and cool, I get a tiny taste of blueberryish on the retrohale.

I'm smoking it in a new (used maybe 5 times... just enough to burn out the sweet corny taste) MM Danish Spool, and it burns cleanly down to the bottom.

It was a nice smoke and I enjoyed it. I could see myself buying Carter Hall in the future, but the unidentified flavor is gonna drive me crazy trying to figure out what it is.


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

*Sugar Barrel*

When I first started smoking a pipe, this was a baccy I really wanted to try. Despite the warnings that it's flavors were far from the what the name implied, I was still hoping for a wonderfully sweet smoke. Available primarily in a tub, although I believe 4 Noggins makes it available in a pouch.

Nice ribbon cut burley with an aromatic topping yields a heavenly maple sugar tin note. The dark brown pieces could easily be mistaken for brown sugar. It lit right up and gave a straightforward burn, typical of most OTCs I've tried. A slight initial sweetness gave way to a full burley flavor with a bit of VA brightness. Sadly, I was still anticipating a sweeter aromatic smoke, even though I was warned this would not be the case.

SB is a good solid smoke, but didn't live up to my misguided preconceived expectations. Now that my maiden smoke is over I look forward to trying it again and enjoying it for what it is. Thanks for the opportunity to smoke this one!


----------



## mcgreggor57 (Nov 3, 2011)

*Sir Walter Raleigh Regular*

Like Brian, I was surprised how similar SWR is to PA. As a matter of fact, if you just re-read his review mine would read very much the same  I detected more sweetness than PA but not as much as Carter Hall. It's a solid smoke. The course cut lent itself well to an relatively uninterrupted smoke. The one re-light I had was no fault of the tobacco.

I was hoping the sweetness would hang on until the end but found it gave way fairly quickly to the burley. That's not a bad thing but I really was enjoying the added dimension. Overall it's too similar to a couple other OTC's to keep on hand. I wouldn't hesitate, however, to pick up a pouch if PA or CH wasn't available.


----------



## DanR (Nov 27, 2010)

Ok, being so late to the party (so sorry guys), it is hard for me to say anything that hasn't been said already. Instead, I'll just add my brief thoughts.

First, Mixture 79. This is the one that I was looking forward to trying the most. It gets the brunt of so many "bad tobacco" jokes that I assumed it must be wretched tasting stuff, and for some reason that made me want to have some :lol:. Surprisingly, it's not that bad, if you like Lakeland style tobaccos. To me, it was like a toned down version, or perhaps Americanized version, of Lakeland style tobacco. I didn't get any overly sweet flavors, but after someone else on this thread mentioned Root Beer, I went back to it and sure enough I could detect a little bit of that too. Ididnt dry mine out, as the sample I recieved seemed to be about right. It did burn a little hot for me though. Overall, I don't like it enough that I would choose it over ennerdale, but I certainly wouldn't shy away from another bowl sometime in the future. 

Next, Sugar Barrel. This is the sample that I sent out. I usually have some on hand. It's my favorite of the OTC bunch. I like it because it's sweeter than most of the other codger burleys, with maybe a touch of vanilla and rum - and I mean just a touch. Mainly, I like the taste of the tobacco leaf. Burley is not my favorite leaf, but when you lighten it up with some Virgina tobacco and add a little sweetness, it makes it much better. It's very light on the nicotine, which is the only reason that I don't reach for it more often. 

Carter Hall is another one that I like very much. This one is more vanilla and cinnamon to me. The burleys in CH are not harsh, nor do they get hot when I smoke it fast. I do occasionally get a bit of astringency in my mouth, which might be the "waxy" that someone else mentioned earlier for a different tobacco, but I have always assumed it was my mouth's PH or me mishandling (mistreating) the tobacco as I try to coax more nicotine from the bowl. I like smoking this one around others as it generally gets the "that smells nice" comments from bystanders. 

Sir Walter Raleigh was not very exciting to me. As I mentioned already, I like the sweeter versions of OTC tobaccos and this one didn't quite stack up. It tasted like plain old burley, with it's typical nutty flavor profile. Would I smoke it again - certainly. But I probably won't stock up the cellar.


----------

